tv Democracy Now LINKTV November 27, 2014 3:00pm-4:01pm PST
[captioning made possible by democracy now!] >> from pacifica, this is democracy now! >> many of the worlds problems are so intractable, that it is hard to think of ways even to take steps towards mitigating them. the israel-palestine conflict is not one of these. on the contrary, the general outlines of a diplomatic solution have been clear for at least 40 years. >> we spend the hour with
world-renowned linguist and dissident noam chomsky, in speech and conversation. before an audience of 800 in the hall of the un's general assembly. >> january 20, 2006, a very important event took place for the first full free election in the arab world, carefully monitored, recognized to be free and fair. it had one flaw that came out the wrong way. hamas won control of parliament. u.s. and israel did not want that. >> noam chomsky for the hour. all of that and more coming up. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. today we spend the hour with professor noam chomsky, world-renowned political dissident, linguist, and author.
he is institute professor emeritus at massachusetts institute of technology, where he has taught for more than half a century. in october, more than 800 people packed the hall of the un's general assembly to see noam chomsky. ambassadors and the public alike from around the world. the event was hosted by the committee on the exercise of the inalienable rights of the palestinian people. professor chomsky gave a major address and i followed with a public interview. first, the speech. >> it is a pleasure to be here. to be able to talk with you and discuss with you afterwards. many of the worlds problems are so intractable that it's hard to think of ways even to take steps towards mitigating them. the israel-palestine conflict is not one of these. the generalary,
outlines of a diplomatic solution have been clear for at least 40 years. not the end of the road -- nothing ever is -- but a significant step forward. and the obstacles to a resolution are also quite clear. the basic outlines are presented brought toesolution the un security council in january 1976. it called for a two state settlement on the internationally recognized now i'm quoting, with guarantees the rights of both states to exist in peace and security within secure and recognized borders. the resolution was brought by the three major arab states -- egypt, jordan, syria --
sometimes called the confrontation states. israel refused to attend the session. the resolution wasetoeoed by the united states. a u.s. veto typically is a veto -- the-- the resolution is not implemented in the event is vetoed from history, so you have to look hard to find the record, but it is there. that has set the pattern that has continued since. the most recent u.s. veto was in february 2011, that's president obama, when his administration veto the resolution calling for implementation of official u.s. policy opposition to expansion of settlements. mindt's worth bearing in
that expansion of settlements is not really the issue. it's the settlements, unquestionably illegal, along with the infrastructure projects supporting them. time, there is been an overwhelming international consensus in support of a settlement along these general lines. the pattern that was set in january 1976 continues to the present. israel rejects a settlement of these terms and for many years has been devoting extensive resources to ensuring that it will not be implemented, with the unremitting and decisive support of the united states -- military, economic, diplomatic, and ideological -- by
establishing how the conflict is viewed and interpreted in the united states and within its rod sphere of influence -- brought spear of influence. there is no time here to review the record, but its general character is revealed by a look at what has happened in gaza in the past decade caring forward a long history of earlier crimes last august, august 26, a cease-fire was reached between israel and the palestinian authority. and the question on all of our minds is, what are the prospects for the future? well, one reasonable way to try to answer that question is to look at the record. and here too there is a definite pattern. a cease-fire is reached. israel disregards it and
continues its steady assault on gaza, including continued siege, intermittent ask of violence, more settlement and development projects, often violence in the west bank. asas observes the cease-fire the cease-fire, as israel officially recognizes, until some israeli escalation enlisted a hamas response, which leads to another exercise of mowing the , eachn israeli parlance episode more fears and destructive than the last. the first of the series was the agreement on movement and access in november 2005. i will give a close paraphrase of it. it called for a crossing between export ofgypt for the
goods and the transit of people, continuous operation of crossings between israel and gaza for the import and export of goods and the transit of people, reduction of obstacles to movement within the west bank , bus and truck convoys between the west bank and gaza, the building of a seaport in gaza, the reopening of the airport in gaza that israel had recently destroyed. now these are essentially the terms of successive cease-fires, including the one just reached a few weeks ago. the timing of the november 2005 agreement is significant. this was the moment of israel's disengagement, as it's called,
from gaza -- the removal of several thousand israeli settlers from gaza. now, this is depicted as a noble effort to seek peace and development, but the reality is rather different. , veryality was described quickly, by the israeli official who was in charge of negotiating and implementing the cease-fire, glas," and of then sharon, asster ariel he explained to the israeli press, the goal of the disengagement was "the freezing of the peace process," so as to "prevent the establishment of a palestinian state" and to ensure the diplomacy "has been removed indefinitely from our agenda."
the reality on the ground is described by israel's leading ,pecialists on the occupation historian, respected historian, israel's leading diplomatic akiva eldar, wrote the major book, the standard work on the settlement project land,""lords of the referring to the settlers. what they say about the engagement is this. they say the ruined territory -- and by then, it was ruined, largely part of the reason for the removal of the settlers -- the ruined territory was not released for even a single day , or israel's military grip from the price of the occupation of the inhabitants pay every day. after the disengagement, israel
left behind scorched earth, devastated services, and people with neither present nor future. settlements were destroyed in an ungenerous move by an unenlightened occupier, which in fact continues to control the territory and to kill and her as its inhabitants by means of its formidable military might. now, that's an accurate description from the most respected israeli source. the also accords, 20 years ago, established that gaza and the west bank are an indivisible territorial unity, whose integrity cannot be broken up. for 20 years, the united states and israel have been dedicated to separate gaza and the west bank in violation of the accords
that they had accepted. and a look at the map explains why. gaza offers the only access to the outside world of palestine. if gaza is separated from the autonomy, whatever might ultimately be graded in the west bank would be imprisoned -- israel on one side, a hostile jordan, ally of israel, the other side, and in addition, one of israel's slow and steady u.s.-backed policies ,o take over the jordan valley about a third of the west bank, much of the arable land, which would essentially imprison the rest even more tightly, if gaza is separated from the west bank. now, that's the major
geostrategic reason for the israeli insistence with u.s. backing on separating the two in violation of the also agreements in the series of cease-fires that have been reached since november 2005. well, the november 2005 agreement lasted for a few weeks. 2006, a very important event took place -- the first full, free election in world, of world -- arab carefully monitored, recognized to be free and favor. it had one flaw. it came out the wrong way. won control of the parliament. the u.s. and israel didn't want that. ,ou may recall at that period
the slogan on everyone's lips was, "democracy promotion." in highest u.s. commitment the world was democracy promotion. your was a good test. democracy -- election came out the wrong way. the was instantly decided, along with israel, to punish the palestinians for the crime of voting the wrong way. a harsh siege was instituted, other punishments. violence increased. the united states immediately began to organize a military coup to overthrow the unacceptable government. ,hat's quite familiar practice i won't go through the record. the european union, to its shame and discredit, went along with this. there was an immediate israeli escalation. that was the end of the november agreement, followed by major israeli onslaughts.
in 2007, a year later, hamas committed even a greater crime than winning a fair election. it preempted the planned military coup and took over gaza . that's described in the west, in the united states, most of the west, as hamas's taking over gaza by force -- which is not false, but something is omitted. preempting a planned military coup to overthrow the elected government. now, that was a serious crime. it's bad enough to vote the wrong way in a free election, but to preempt a u.s.-plan military coup is far more serious. the attack on gaza increased substantially at that point, major israeli onslaughts. 2008,y, in january
another cease-fire was reached. terms were pretty much the same as those that i quoted. israel publicly rejected the cease-fire, said that it would not abide by it. cease-fire,ed the is israel officially recognizes, despite israel's refusal to do so. now, that continued until november 4, 2008. on november 4, which was the day of the u.s. election, israeli forces invaded gaza, killed half a dozen hamas militants. that led to qassam rockets attacking israel, huge israeli of killings -- all palestinians, as usual. by the end of december, a couple
of weeks later, hamas offered to renew the cease-fire. the israeli considered it and rejected it. this was a dovish cabinet, led -- rejected it and decided to launch the next major military operations. that was cast lead, which was a horrible operation, so much so that it caused a very substantial international byction, investigations united nations commission, amnesty international, human rights watch. in the middle of the assault -- the assault, incidentally, was carefully timed to and immediately before president obama's inauguration. he had already been elected, but he wasn't inaugurated yet. so when he was asked to comment on the growing atrocities, he
responded by saying that he could not do so, the united states has only one president and he wasn't president yes. she was talking about lots of other things, but not this. the attack was timed to end immediately before the inauguration. so, therefore, he could respond to the questions by saying, well, now is not the time to look at the past, let's look forward to the future. diplomats know very well that that's a standard slogan for those who are engaged in serious let's forget about the past, let's look for to a glorious future. well, that was right in the middle of the assault. the security council did pass a resolution -- unanimously, u.s. abstaining -- calling for immediate cease-fire with the usual terms. that was january 8, 2009.
it was never observed in a broke down completely with the next major episode of mowing the lawn in november 2012. you can get a good sense of what was going on by looking at the casualty figures for the year 2012. people were killed, 78 of them palestinians -- the usual story. speaking in the hall of the united nations general assembly. in the event hosted by the u.n. committee on the exercise of the in a vulnerable rights of the palestinian people. we will return to his speech and our conversation in a minute. ♪ [music break]
>> this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. to noam chomsky come a world-renowned political dissident, linguist, and author. in october, mig professor noam chomsky spoke in the hall at the united nations general assembly. he talked about the aftermath of the november 2012 israeli assault on gaza. >> after the november assault, there was a cease-fire reached with the usual terms. i'll describe what happened next by quoting a leading specialist, l.than thral
he's a leading middle east analyst for the international crisis group. as he writes, israel recognize that hamas was observing the terms of the cease-fire, and therefore saw little incentive in doing the same. the military attacks on gaza increased, along with more stringent restrictions on imports. exports were blocked. exit permits were blocked. and -- that continued until april 2014 when palestinians committed another crime. bankbased hamas and west -based palestinian authority signed a unity agreement. israel was infuriated -- infuriated even more when the world mostly supported it.
even the united states gave week, but actual, support. several reasons for the israeli reaction. one is that unity between gaza and the west bank, between the two movements, would threaten the long-standing policies of separating the two, for the reasons that i mentioned. another reason was that a unity government undermines one of the for israel's refusal to participate in negotiations seriously -- namely, how can we negotiate with an entity that is internally divided? well, if they were unified, the pretext disappears. israel was infuriated. it launched major assault on the palestinians in the west bank, primarily targeting hamas. hundreds of people arrested, mostly hamas members. also gaza, also killings.
a pretext, of course. there always is. the pretext was that three teenagers, israeli teenagers, in the settlements had been brutally murdered, captured and murdered. israel claimed officially that they thought that they were alive thomas so therefore launched along, several weeks assault on the west bank, alleging they were trying to find them alive. meanwhile, the rest, attacks and so on. it turns out they knew immediately that they had been killed. they also knew immediately that it was very unlikely that hamas was involved. the government said they had certain knowledge that hamas had done it, but their own leading specialists have pointed out right away that the assault, which was a brutal crime, was very likely committed by members
in hebronakaway clan hamas and had been a thorn in their sides. and that apparently is true, if you look at the later arrests and punishments. anyway, that was a pretext for this assault, killings in gaza, too. for masslly elicited response. then came operation protective edge, the one which was just completed, and more brutal and destructive even the ones that preceded it. clear.tern is very and so far, at least, it appears to be continuing. the latest cease-fire was reached on august 26. it was followed at once by israel's greatest landgrab in 30 years, almost 8000 acres -- 1000
area in the gush etzion near what is called jerusalem, greater jerusalem, about five times the size of anything that jerusalem ever was, taken over by israel, annexed in violation of security council orders. the u.s. state department inform israelieli embassy that -- i'm quoting it now -- "israeli activity in gush etzion undermines american efforts to protect israel at the united nations" and urged that israel shouldn't provide ammunition for "those of the united nations who would interpret israel's position as hardening." givenly, that warning was in september 1967, at the time of israel's first colonization -- illegal
colonization, of gush etzion. israeli history and recently reminded us of this. little has changed since, in the last 47 years, apart from the scale of crimes, which continue, without a break, with constant u.s. support. as for the prospects, there is a .onventional picture is repeated constantly on all sides -- is rock, palestine, independent commentators, diplomats. is picture that is presented there are two alternatives, either the two state settlement, which represents an overwhelming international consensus, virtually everyone, and if that fails, there will have to be one state.
israel will take over the west bank, the palestinians will hand over the keys, as is sometimes said. palestinians often have favor that. they say then they will be able to carry out the civil rights struggle, maybe modeled on the anti-apartheid struggle in south rights fight for civil within the whole one state controlled by israel. now, israelis criticize that on the grounds of what is called the demographic problem, the fact that there will be too many non-jews in a jewish state. in fact, pretty soon a majority. those are the alternatives that are presented, overwhelmingly, hardly an exception. my own opinion, which i've written about repeatedly -- without convincing many people, apparently, that i will try to convince you -- is that this is a total illusion. those are not the two
alternatives. there are two alternatives, but they are different ones. the one alternative is the international consensus on a two state settlement, basically the terms of january 1976. by now, it's virtually everyone , thee arab league organization of islamic states, includes iran, europe, latin america -- informally, at least, about everyone. that's one option. the other option, the realistic one, is that israel will continue doing exactly what it is doing right now, before our eyes, visible, with u.s. support, which is also visible. and what's happening is not a secret. you can open the newspapers and read it. israel is taking over what they call jerusalem, as i mentioned,
a huge area committee -- a huge area, maybe five times the area of historic jerusalem, greater jerusalem, big area in the west bank, includes many air villages being dispossessed, destroyed, bringing settlers in. all of this is doubly illegal. all of the settlements are illegal as determined by the security council advisory opinion of the international court of justice, but the jerusalem settlements are doubly illegal because they're also in violation of explicit security council orders going back to 1968, with the u.s. actually voting for them at that time, barring any change in the status of jerusalem. but it continues. that's greater jerusalem. there are then corridors extending to the east. one major corridor extending from jerusalem almost two jericho, virtually bisecting the west bank, includes the israeli
dumim, which was built largely during the clinton administration, clinton years, with the obvious earth this -- obvious purpose of bisecting the west bank. still a little contested territory, but that's the goal. there's another corridor further to the north including the town of ariel, partially bisecting what remains. another one further to the north . if you look at the map, these essentially break up the west bank into pretty much cantons. as thes from a map, large territory is left, but that's misleading. most of that is uninhabitable desert. and that's separate from what i mission before him at the slow, steady takeover of the jordan valley to the east -- again, about one third of the arable land, the country.
official policy of taking it over, but they're pursuing the policy and the way that is being carried out now for 100 years, literally -- small steps so nobody notices, or at least people pretend not to notice, establish a military zone. the palestinians who live there have to be displaced because it's a military zone, no settlement allowed, and pretty soon there's a military settlement, nahal settlement, and another, then sooner or later, becomes an actual settlement. meanwhile, dig wells, is possessed the population, set of green zones -- a large variety of techniques which have, by now, reduce the arab population from about 300,000 in 1967 to roughly 60,000 today. as i mentioned, that essentially imprisons what is left.
i don't think israel has any intention of taking over the palestinian population concentrations, which are left out of this, these plans. there are analogies often made to south africa, but they're quite misleading. south africa relied on its black population. that was 85% of the population. it was its workforce. and they had to sustain them, just like slaveowners have to maintain their capital. they tried to sustain the population. they even tried to gain international support for the bantustans. israel has no such attitude for the palestinians. they don't want to have anything to do with them. if they leave, that's fine. if they die, that's fine. in standard neocolonial pattern, israel is establishing -- permitting the establishment of a center for palestinian elites
and rommel, where you have nice restaurants and theaters and so on. every third world country under the colonial system has something like that. that is the picture that is emerging, taking shape before our eyes. .t has so far worked very well if it continues, israel will not face a demographic problem. when these regions are integrated slowly into israel, actually, the proportion of jews in greater israel will increase. there are very few palestinians there. those who are there are being dispossessed, kick out. that is what is taking shape before our eyes. i think that is the realistic alternative to a two state settlement. and there's every reason to expect it to continue as long as the united states supports it. ,> professor noam chomsky speaking in october in the hall of the united nations general a simile. in event hosted by the u.n.
committee on the exercise of the inalienable rights of the palestinian people. if you would like a copy of today's show, you can go to democracynow.org. after chomsky spoke, i interviewed him in front of an audience of 800 at the u.n. we will play highlights of that conversation after this break. ♪ [music break]
>> this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. ,s we return to noam chomsky m.i.t. institute professor at -- and retired professor of linguistics, world-renowned political dissident and author. in october, professor chomsky spoke before 800 people in the hall of the united nations general assembly on the issue of israel and palestine. after his speech, i did a public interview with officer chomsky. we are here at the united nations general assembly. what do you think is the single most important action the u.n. can take to solve the crisis in the occupied territories between the palestinians and the israelis? >> well, we have to bear in mind what all of you know, in the real world, the united nations can act in so far as the great
powers permitted to act. and in this case, that means i merrily the united states and its close ally britain, france, those are the main actors, and they said -- set pretty strict limits. it within those limits, there are things the united nations could do. recognizing the state of palestine is a step forward come already, over 130 members of the united nations have taken that step individually. just recently, there was the first break, sweden announcing that would take that step. just a couple of days ago, the british parliament voted to recognize palestine will stop bear in mind, that was the
governing touring party, basically boycotted the election . it is not a policy change, but significant symbolic move. france has indicated they might move in that direction. i think these would be important steps. further steps that could be taken, i think, are to go beyond what has already partially been done. that producedove a directive calling on member states to avoid any dealings with israeli institutions that have anything to do with the occupation, which they correctly regard as illegal. so in short, don't participate in criminal acts.
that is not an extreme position. .hat can be done several major church groups in the united states -- presbyterians, the church of christ -- have taken similar positions, also directing themselves against multinationals, which are involved in any way in the occupied territories. there is a major boycott being undertaken by major investors of the security firms, the international security firms, which operate in the occupied territories and many other places. all of this could be moved forward to united nations resolution, possibly even or should at least try the security council if the u.s. be towed that is important --veto that brings forward what is happening. all of these are steps that can be undertaken with the recognition that the range of
action at the united nations is, of course, circumscribed by great power politics. >> what do you think is the most -- the single most important action the united states can take? and what about its role over the years? what is its interest here? action ofne important the united states could take is to live up to its own laws. of course, it would be nice if it lived up to international law, but maybe that's too much to ask, but live up to its own laws. [applause] and there are several. and here, incidentally, i have in mind advised activists also, who i think are to be organizing and educating in this direction. there are two crucial cases. one of them is what is called the leahy law.
patrick leahy, senator leahy, introduced legislation called the leahy law, which bars sending weapons to any military units which are involved in consistent human rights violations. or isn't the slightest doubt that the israeli army is involved in massive human rights violations, which means that all dispatch of u.s. arms to israel is in violation of u.s. law. i think that's significant. the u.s. should be called upon by phone citizens and others to adhere to u.s. law, which also happens to conform to international law in this case, as amnesty international, for example, for years has been calling for an arms embargo against israel for this reason. these are all steps that can be taken. -- second is the taxes them
tax-exempt status that is given to organizations in the united states which are directly involved in the occupation and in significant attacks on human and civil rights within israel itself, like the jewish national fund. take a look at its charter with the state of israel, which commits it to acting for the benefit of people of jewish race , religion, and origin within israel. one of the consequences of that is that by a complex array of laws and administrative practices, the fund pretty much it ministers about 90% of the land of the country, with real consequences for who can live places. alsoget tax-exempt status for their activities in the west
bank, which restrict the criminal. i think that's also straight in violation of u.s. law. now, those are important things. and i think the u.s. should be pressured internationally and domestically to abandon its -- virtually unique role, unilateral role in blocking a political settlement for the past 40 years, ever since the first veto in january 1976. that should be a major issue in the media, and convocations like this, in the united nations, in domestic politics, and government politics, and so on. , cane role of the media you talk about that, and particularly in the united states? and do you think that the opinion in the united states, public opinion, shifting on this issue?
>> well, the role of the media are somewhat shifting from uniform support for virtually everything that israel does to -- and of course, silence about the u.s. role -- that's not just in the case of israel, that's innumerable other cases as well -- but is slowly shifting. but nevertheless, say, operation protective edge, one can read in news reporting, news reporting in "the new york times," may be journal, a criticism of hamas's assault on israel during protective edge. 's assault on israel, not exactly what happened, but that's what people are reading. and that is the way it is depicted. itael is -- over and over has pointed out, look, poor
israel is under attack. it has the right of self-defense. everyone agrees to that. axa, i agree. everyone has the right of self-defense, but that's not the question. the question is, do you have a right of self-defense by force, by violence? for anyone,s, no, whether it is an individual or state, unless you have exhausted peaceful means. if you won't even permit peaceful means, which is the case here, then you have no right of self-defense by violence. but try to find a word about that in the media. all you find is "self-defense." obama really says anything about what's happening, it's usually, if my daughters were being attacked by rockets, i would do anything to stop it. he's referring not to the palestinians -- hundreds of palestinian children who are being killed and slaughtered, but to the children in the israeli town of sderot, which is
under attack by qassam missiles. and remember, israel knows exactly how to stop those missiles. namely, live up to a cease-fire for the first time, and then they would stop, as in the past, even when israel did live up to a cease-fire. that framework -- and of course, the rest of the framework is the united states as an honest broker trying hard to bring the lcitrant sides together, doing its best in this noble endeavor, has nothing to do with the case. the u.s. is, as some of the u.s. negotiators have occasionally acknowledged, israel's lawyer. if there were serious negotiations going on, they would be led by some neutral party, maybe brazil, which has some international respect, and
they would bring together the two sides -- on the one side, israel and the united states. on the other side, the palestinians. now, those would be possible realistic negotiations. but the chances of anyone in the media -- i won't even say pointing it out, even thinking about it, is miniscule. the indoctrination is so deep that really elementary facts like these -- and they are elementary -- are almost incomprehensible. but to get back to your last point you mentioned, it's a very important point. opinion in the united states is shifting, not as fast as in most of the world, not as fast as in europe. it's not reaching the point or you could get a vote in congress anything like a british parliament a couple of days ago, but it is changing. mostly among younger people and changing substantially.
i'll just illustrate with personal experience. amy has the same experience. until pretty recently, when i gave talks on these topics, as i've been doing for 40 years, i literally had to have police protection, even in my own university, m.i.t. police would insist on walking me back to my car because of threats then picked up. meetings were broken up, and so on. that is all gone. just a couple of days ago, i had a talk on these topics at m.i.t. meeting wasn't broken up. no police protection. maybe 500 or 600 students were there, all enthusiastic, engaged, committed, concerned, wanting to do something about it. that is happening all over the country. all over the country, the palestinian solidarity is one of the biggest issues on campus -- enormous change in the last two years. that is the way things tend to
change. it often starts with younger people. gradually, he gets to the rest of the population. efforts of the kind i mentioned, say, trying to get the u.s. government to live up to its own laws, those could be undertaken on a substantial scale, domestically, and with support from international institutions. and that could lead to further changes. example,hat the -- for the two things that i mentioned would have a considerable appeal to much of the american public. why should they be funding military units that are carrying out massive human rights violations? why should they be permitting tax exemption? meaning, we pay for it. that's what attacks exception means. why should we be paying, compelled to pay, for violations of fundamental human rights in another country, and even in occupied territories, where it is criminal?
appeal to thean american population and kelly to the kinds of changes we've seen in other cases. writing af you were reader's guide to accompany "the new york times" in its coverage of israel and palestine, what advice would you give? >> i would tell them to watch democracy now! [laughter] [applause] and that wasn't preplanned. [laughter] >> and if you're wondering where you can watch it, democracynow.org. [laughter] final question before we open it up to each of you. your thoughts on the bds movement, the boycott, divest, sanctions movement? >> well, the bds is a set of tactics. these are tactics that you
employee when you think they're going to be effective, in ways you think will be effective. tactics are not principles. they are not actions you undertake the matter what because you think they're right. tactics are undertaken, if you are serious, because you think they're going to help the victims. that's how you adjust your time x or not because i think they're right in principle, but because i think they will be beneficial. that ought to be second nature to activists. also second nature should be a crucial distinction between proposing and advocating. i can propose now that we should all live in peace and love each other. i just proposed it. it is not a serious proposal. it becomes a serious proposal went it becomes advocacy.
path for getting from here to there, then it becomes serious. otherwise, it is empty words. that is crucial and related to this. when you take a look at the bds movement, which is separate, incidentally, from bds tactics, let me make that clear. so when the european union issued its directive or when -- that i mentioned, or when, say, the gates foundation withdraws investment in security operations that are being carried out on not only in the occupied territories, but elsewhere, that's free important for -- that's very important. but that is not the bds movement, that is bds tactics, action, bd tactics, boycott, divestment tactics. that's important. the bds movement itself has been an impetus to these
developments, and in many ways, positive one, but i think it has failed and should reflect on its, so far, unwillingness to face what are crucial questions for activists. what is going to help the victims, and what is going to harm them? what is a proposal, and what is a real advocacy? you have to think that through, and it hasn't been sufficiently done. so if you take a look at the principles of the bds movement, there are three. they vary slightly in wording, but basically, three. one is, actions should be directed against the occupation. that has been extremely successful in many ways, and it makes sense. it also helps educate the western populations who are being appealed to to participate, enables -- it's an , investigate,cuss
and organize about the per dissipation in the occupation. -- participation in the occupation. that's for successful. a second principle is that bds actions should be continued until israel allows the refugees to return. success and to the extent it has been tried, it has been negative. it just leads to a backlash. no basis has been laid for a long the population. it is simply interpreted as saying, oh, you want to destroy the state of israel. were not going to destroy a state. you cannot undertake actions which you think are visible when in the real world, they're going to have a harmful effect on the victims. there's a third category having to do with civil rights within israel, and there are things that could be done here. one of the ones i mentioned, in tax-free status for
u.s. organizations that are engaged in civil rights and human rights violations. and remember, a tax exemption means, i pay for it. that is what attacks exception is. well, that's an action that could be undertaken. others that have been undertaken have had backlashes which are harmful. and i will run through the record, but these are the kinds of questions that always have to be asked when you are involved in serious activism's, if you care about the victims, not just feeling good, the caring about the victims. that is critically important. >> we will end with the israel-palestine mission network of the presbyterian church usa. >> thank you. i want to thank you for mentioning the presbyterian church's vote this summer, the b and d tactic as you put it. we voted to divest from the three american companies who
profit from the occupation. thank you for mentioning that. was --question actually is unrelated. how would you respond to the charge that anti-zionism is the new anti-summative some -- anti-semitism? the bestly, formulation of this was by an ambassador to the united nations , israel's ambassador to the united nations, in an article that he wrote about 45 years ago, which i heard yo urge you . it appeared in congress weekly, major journal of the more liberal wing of the american jewish community. he wrote an interesting article
in which -- he was then you and ambassador from the state of israel. he advised the american jewish community that they had two tasks to perform. one task was to show that criticism of the policy, what he called anti-zionism, that actually means criticisms of the policy of the state of israel, were anti-semitism. task.s the first the second task is the criticism was made by jews, their task was to show that it is erotic, self-hatred, needs psychiatric treatment. he gave two examples of the latter category. one was i of stone, the other was me. so we have to be treated for our psychiatric disorders and non-jews have to be condemned for anti-semitism, if they're critical of the state of israel. that is understandable why
israeli propaganda would take this position. i don't particularly blame him for doing what ambassadors are sometimes supposed to do, but we ought to understand there is no sensible charge. no sensible charge. there's nothing to respond to. it is not a form of anti-semitism, it is simply a criticism. period. >> well as we -- [applause] when you have the great journalist i have stone in the leading political dissident in the united states today gnome chomsky criticizing you, you know you have to reconsider your position. it has been wonderful hearing from professor chomsky today, as you gathered a crowd of hundreds of people to hear you, thank you
so much for being with us. tune into democracynow.org where you can see this whole session as well as other interviews with professor chomsky. thanks so much. >> and much of professor, world-renowned lynn westmoreland ,issident, noam chomsky speaking in october in the hall of the united nations general assembly at an event hosted by the u.n. committee on the exercise of the unalienable rights of the palestinian people. if you would like a copy of today's show or any of our interviews with noam chomsky, you can go to our website democracynow.org. democracy now! is looking for feedback from people who appreciate the closed captioning. e-mail your comments to email@example.com or mail them to democracy now! p.o. box 693 new york, new york 10013. [captioning made possible by democracy now!]
>> for many peoples, civilizations, and faiths, nature, or the natural world, has been an important access point to the sacred. and as we experience the wondrous spectrum of life forms that surround us here on earth, perhaps the most urgent question of the 21st century is, how do we balance the biological needs of other species with our seemingly unending needs as humans?